Time to give Leonard more credit for Hagler??

1. Hagler was past it.

2. Fight won in the boardroom.

3. Hagler was robbed.

Tend to see a lot of the above when discussing this issue...None of which are true!!!

What is true is that this was an amazing achievement by a huge underdog who wasn't given a prayer!!!...hadn't fought for three years and was supposed to get knocked out..

You can gain an advantage in the boardroom but to say anybody wins a fight there is detrimental to his opponent....Unless we are talking catchweight..(leonard let himself down with Donny for sure!! but that's another story)

Hagler was a fearsome warrior who had never dealt on speed... but relentless pressure, switch hitting and durability..!!! Two of the three he showed but the relentless pressure he wasn't "allowed" to show...

Leonard outboxed the southpaw and the orthodox Hagler, outsmarted him....For sure Hagler may have landed the more hurtful shots but Leonard knew he wouldn't knock Hagler out anyway....

Superb Boxing performance by a guy who was out of the game for three years against a foe that post-Curry was considered at the top of the tree!!

Should we give Leonard more credit...Yep I think we should and acknowledge a superb Boxing performance and achievement!!

Have to disagree on almost every level there Truss, whilst it was a fabulous achievement it is somewhat overshadowed by all the factors you mention, have it as his fourth best win behind Duran, Hearns and Benitez.

Yes but Hagler was p4p number 1...a ferocious animal who beat people before the first bell...a talented switch hitter....and a tricky southpaw and a true warrior!!

Now for a guy to come out of retirement without a tune up and turn him over...

I think he deserves some credit Mate!!!!

If thats how you see things then yes it does but then there's the flipside that Hagler fans like myself see him as having won fairly comfortably only to be robbed by the judges in a ring and length of fight that played into his opponents hand.

20 x 20 isn't exactly a strange phenomenon these days..

I see where you are coming from but I had it 116-113..Leonard

Hagler just didn't do enough..

ah my favourite topic, where's atila?

My beef is when people call it a robbery. To see that fight as hagler winning fairly comfortably, ghosty, is definitely a fight seen through the eyes of a hagler fan, and not one that all his fans share.

A poll on the bbc board many moons ago in terms of who won, had a slight edge to leonard, but it was pretty even. What you'd expect in a close fight.

Re the original post truss... i see this as srl's last hurrah, lots of people get on the bandwagon that hagler was past it because of the mugabi fight. Leonard himself says thats why he took the fight. Personally, I thought hagler put in a pretty good performance in breaking down an unbeaten and commited mugabi in what was an excellent fight. Leonard is a rarity in boxing, in that he'd rather we all thought he was clever than good. I've no doubt he spotted weaknesses in hagler, but he has some kind of intellectual inferiority complex at play, that makes a big deal of such things - all fighters think they've seen things in opponents that give them a chance.

That said, Hagler looked slow in the leonard fight and my personal view is that the consensus he was on the slide is fair to some degree. Enough to counter, the weight and lay off period for leonard though?

On the night though he lost because he chucked away the first 4 rounds trying to be clever... which he wasn't unfortunately... and came up against a gifted fighter with cojones and a plan

Out negotiated in the run up, out smarted in the ring, just a bad day at the office for the marvelous one.

Spotting weaknesses is one thing...exploiting them is another....

Much to what you say Milky......but for me Leonard hadn't fought in three years and to come in and beat Hagler "cold" should be much praised in my humble opinion..

I give SRL all the credit in the world for the Hagler fight. Marv's mistake was coming out orthodox in the early rounds. But to come out of retirement after 3 years and put on that type of display is simply awesome. I've said many times and repeat here that peak for peak, SRL is on par with SRR. Shoot me for saying that.

I'll say again I'm no fan of SRL. I didn't like his saccarine sweet manner. I wanted Hagler to take his head off. I've seen that fight many times and still scored it for Hagler in a close fight. Certainly Hagler was not robbed. Anyone who states that is simply lying to their own eyes. Hagler won that fight but SRL (even if the decision went against him) was the moral winner.

Absolutely....Hagler was an impenetrable foe and p4p great..shows someone special that can do that to him..

The achievement gets lost in all the politics surrounding the fight..

lest there's any confusion... i give leonard great credit for the fight truss... no-one gave him a prayer and no-one was saying hagler was on the slide before the fight

Dont see how anyone can argue that Hagler was on the slide considering he knocked out John Mugabi, undefeated and ranked at number 1 by all governing bodies previously.

Got to agree with Truss on this one. I was a big fan of Hagler and gave no chance for Leonard but I agree with the judges' decision. Hagler fought the wrong kind of fight, he seemed to be doing better as a southpaw then for some reason switched to orthodox. For my money he wasn't robbed but maybe his previous bout with Mugabi had taken more out of him than we realised.

DaveVDK wrote:Dont see how anyone can argue that Hagler was on the slide considering he knocked out John Mugabi, undefeated and ranked at number 1 by all governing bodies previously.

It was the manner of victory which was a slight worry, Mugabi was a decent fighter but not the kind of boxer you would have expected the Hagler of old to have trouble with, he looked slower and more labored. I do believe it was the performance in that fight which resulted in the Leonard fight being made, if he looked at his devastating best then Leonard steers well clear.

I have watched the fight numerous times, and the decision always sticks in my craw. Although this era was before my time, after researching and watching the majority of the great fights of this era, I never warmed to SRL, and have always preferred Hagler.

Having said that, I can't say Hagler was robbed, the fight was close no matter which way you see it or score it, I just happen to be of the opinion that the figher who is forcing the issue and looking to engage should get more credit than the fighter who is happy to fight on the back foot and only sparodically engage in flurries which have no real conviction.

I agree that the thing which more than likely swung the fight in SRL's favour was Hagler's decision to start off orthodox, those couple of rounds made all the difference IMO, it was that close.

If you're being overly critical you could put forward an argument to say that SRL stole it or Hagler threw it away, but that would be overlooking the overal quality of the fight. It was a great fight, pure and simple, its just a fact that the judges were more impressed by SRL's flurries than Hagler's stalking and more powerful punches. This in itelsf could be construed as a conspiracy given the American's traditional fondess of scoring agressivness more favourbaly.

Bigger ring, 12 rounds instead of 15 etc. Bottom line Hagler was P4P No.1, an all time great middleweight champion who was on a run of his biggest wins after topping Duran, Hearns, Mugabi and was an over whelming favourite. Leoanrd had only boxed 9 rounds in 5 years and got dropped in the process and never competed at this weight let alone at championship level was given no chance.

What happened; Leonard showed why he is an all time great fighter by out boxing and where necessary stand his ground and fight to produce a performance and a result that may never be matched again.

Yes it was a close fight but for me every time I have watched it I have SRL winning. Yes the first 4 rounds clearly belonged to Ray and the last 8 split down the middle.

The pivital thing for me in the fight was round 9 where Marvin finally got Ray where he wanted him, trapped along the ropes and forced to fight. Ray did not have the power to hurt Marvin, but threw enough leather to stop himself being overwhelmed and make for me, Marvin realise on this night he could not beat Ray as Hagler seemed to go through the motions in the final rounds.

Floyd Mayweather came out of a 2 year retirment to beat an older, smaller yet P4P No.2 in Juan Manuel Marquez (who later on still gives Manny fits) but got negative feedback because of the above. SRL had a much longer abscence, against a much bigger foe who had destroyed all before him for years and was P4P numero uno; if that does not deserve great credit then I don't know what does.

It's a great win but not as great as it could have been.

Interesting stuff, Truss. In general, I'd agree that it's a somewhat underrated win for Leonard.

The thing is, I actually do think that Hagler was a little past his best by 1987. But even so, he was surely in a much better condition to contest a Middleweight title fight than Leonard was, so we can't really use that rod to beat Leonard's achievement here.

I think we can all accept, too, that Hagler's claims over the past twenty-five years of him being 'robbed' can be taken with a pinch of salt. Guerra's card of 118-110 was a disgrace, of course, but Leonard eeking out the decision itself certainly wasn't. Have probably watched the fight half a dozen times in my life, and each and every time I've had Leonard winning. There's a myth growing that the only meaningul punches were landed by Marvin, but this just isn't true. As last as round twelve, Leonard was landing some decent flurries which had Hagler conceding ground at times.

The majority of people I've come across who complain about the result often tend to do so on the ill-founded idea that a champion should never lose his title on such a wafer-thin verdict, rather than arguing that Hagler actually did enough to win the fight itself, which says a lot to me.

As with Duran II, it was Leonard's own brand of psychological warfare at its best, and it worked. If you can find them, take a look at the pre-fight press conferences and interviews, where Leonard repeatedly drops hints to Hagler about how he'd be so easy to outbox and outmove due to his inactivity. He made Hagler believe it, which resulted in Hagler's ego going in to overdrive. Starting off orthodox, letting Leonard have his space and trying to box at range rather than pressuring from the off, even that incredibly uncharacteristic 'victory' dance at the final bell....Marvin's psyche was truly dented, and I dare say it effected him in the fight.

Certainly a remarkable achievement by Leonard, one which perhaps doesn't always get the full recognition it deserves.

Realistically how could he have improved it Ghosty? Ray never would have been able to knock Marvin out and if the fight happened years earlier then I think Ray would have got less respect then for the win. What made the victory so great was the amount time Leonard had out of the ring and the reputation Marvin had made for himself by beating Duran, Hearns and Mugabi in those years Ray watched from the sidelines.

If this fight happened after Ray had won title at 154 and unifying at 147, then Marvin was pretty much an unknown fighter at that time.

Perfect timing and performance if you ask me.

mikeymax71 wrote:Realistically how could he have improved it Ghosty? Ray never would have been able to knock Marvin out and if the fight happened years earlier then I think Ray would have got less respect then for the win. What made the victory so great was the amount time Leonard had out of the ring and the reputation Marvin had made for himself by beating Duran, Hearns and Mugabi in those years Ray watched from the sidelines.

If this fight happened after Ray had won title at 154 and unifying at 147, then Marvin was pretty much an unknown fighter at that time.

Perfect timing and performance if you ask me.

Had he beaten Hagler a few years prior it would have been a far greater achievement, him being out of the ring for so long doesn't factor into it for me and to say Hagler was unknown is a bit wrong. He was the middleweight champion of the world who had been talked about for years as a possible opponent for Hearns or Leonard, the timing was perfect in that Leonard doesn't win at any other time, pre Mugabi he wanted nothing to do with him and for good reason.

When Ray retired, Hagler was by no means a big name (somewhat different to being unknown). He was a good fighter but had no legacy to speak of due to the lack of big names on his record. Yes it would have been a much tougher fight and I would have to agree Marvin proabably would have won but if Leaonard had faced Hagler prior to his retirement in 82 what credit would Ray have got for beating Marvin? By that time Hagler did not have a long reign as world champion and failed to beat a very ordinary Antofeurmo in his first attempt at the title. If Ray had won I'm sure the boxing purists would have said not surprising dut to calibre of people who Hagler had failed to beat previuosly.

Also I can't believe you think having 1 fight in 5 years does not factor in to the achievement. Not many fighters that I'm aware of has had one fight in 5 years and beats he guy generally rated the best fighter on the planet.

I see things from the point of view of myself and I think the timing was perfect for Leonard which makes the victory less impressive, Hagler was not at his best and was crucified in the negotiations. I still think championship fights should be 15 rounds and for Leonard to have won over what I consider to be (especially in 87) a non championship distance takes some of the shine off the victory.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I see things from the point of view of myself and I think the timing was perfect for Leonard which makes the victory less impressive, Hagler was not at his best and was crucified in the negotiations. I still think championship fights should be 15 rounds and for Leonard to have won over what I consider to be (especially in 87) a non championship distance takes some of the shine off the victory.

Bearing in mind that most people have the fight close either way, do you think over 15, Hagler would have won? Personally, I beleive he would have.

so ghosty... don't you think leonard was also past his best? Watch any pre first retirement leonard fight and any fight from hagler onwards and compare them... its like pre v post vietnam ali in terms of speed and conditioning.

Both fighters past their primes imo

The relevance of the fight to me is less significant because they were past their bests. Leonard beating Hearns was a great win but had Hearns got the rightful decision in the second fight it would only have been a good win, a full blown great win needs to be between two fighters at their absolute bests or at least the loser.

Ali beating Foreman was a great win because he was clearly past his best while Foreman was at his absolute best something Hagler was not.

I still think the win deserves more credit as if they were both in their primes the fight would have never taken place as Ray was comfortable at 147.

mikeymax71 wrote:I still think the win deserves more credit as if they were both in their primes the fight would have never taken place as Ray was comfortable at 147.

Hagler being off his prime can be countered by SRL being out of the ring for 3 years. Still for me Hagler won. But it was a brilliant effort from SRL regardless of the outcome. Best boxer I have ever seen.

azania wrote:

mikeymax71 wrote:I still think the win deserves more credit as if they were both in their primes the fight would have never taken place as Ray was comfortable at 147.

Hagler being off his prime can be countered by SRL being out of the ring for 3 years. Still for me Hagler won. But it was a brilliant effort from SRL regardless of the outcome. Best boxer I have ever seen.

Fully agree Azania, except for I thought Leonard was a winner of a very good, close fight

Hagler was a big name in 1983...That's why the fight was such a disappointment when it didn't happen...

Not sure whether you are talking about over here but Hagler as the fearsome undisputed middleweight champion for three years had big name value..and was a blue collar favorite back then..

Why the fight would have been so big..

Was it really a good fight?

I thought it was boring. Leonard ran and Hagler was just plain stupid.

Great fight.

Leonard wins it purley on ring smarts for me. It was close but Leonard showed how crafty and slick a fighter could be by stealing the rounds, Hagler could only hunt Leonard all night.

Leonard forght for 30 seconds of each round. Hagler did the most effective work. Close fight. Certainly no-one can claim either was robbed had it gone the ooher way. I had it for Hagler by 2-3 rounds.

Never thought I'd hear Leonard-Hagler described as a 'great fight.' A great story perhaps, in terms of Leonard defying the odds. A great event maybe, in terms of the pure attention and hype it received from the media. But certainly not a great fight by any stretch of the imagination.

How many of us would really have cared to revisit it if it hadn't featured perhaps the two biggest stars of the eighties?

I agree chris, Leonard's tactics may have ruined the fight but there was no way he was going to go toe to toe with Hagler. Having said that Hagler was wrong to fight right handed first as he had better success when he re-verted to south paw. Can't blame Leonard for that.

There should have been a re-match but if Leonard could frustrate Hagler after 3 years out of the ring then I think he would have put in a more convincing performence if there was a second bout.

Disagree........In the rematch he storms out a la Holmes-Spinks 2 and takes Leonard out of his comfort zone...He gets stuck in with his head and shoves a few elbows in...

No way does leonard get an easy ride second time around...

However for me in the actual fight he stole enough rounds to win...

Contentious not controversial..

Leonard spends 3 years out of the ring and still comes through without a scratch against Hagler.

What do you think a fully prepared Leonard would do to a maroading brute like Hagler?

So he wasn't prepared the first time then ...

Yep Hagler is just going to do the same thing twice isn't he!!!!!!

Maybe he could try the spinning back fist..

If hagler had a second try at leonard he would have beat seven shades of Poopie out of him. Headbutts, elbows low blows the body the body the body. Leonard at that point probably wouldn't be able to hold him back.

I'd feel sorry for the sparring partners.

SRL may have spent 3 years out of the ring, but he had many live sparring sessions to imitate a real fight. Given that he fought as often as Floyd, those sparring sessions were excellent prep. But still little can imitate an actual fight. Great performance.

I recall watching it live at the Festival Hall so for me it was more than a fight but an event.

An angry snarling Hagler with a point to prove doesn't make the same mistake twice just ask Antuofermo.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Leonard spends 3 years out of the ring and still comes through without a scratch against Hagler.

What do you think a fully prepared Leonard would do to a maroading brute like Hagler?

Hagler would have taken him apart in a rematch. SRL fought the best he could. Hagler showed him too much respect. That is what annoyed me about SRL. Didn;t rematch anyone other than Duran (whilst they were peaked that is). He propably knew Hearns would take his head off and Harler would simply beat him up.

I wouldnt have held hagler beating him against him to be honest. But hearns would have called into question his greatness at welter because he would have second fiddle. No shame but not quite what you'd expect from the most naturally gifted fighter possibly ever.

Yeah Hagler WOULD have but what have you got to go on?

Considering that he could not land a telling blow on Leonard fist time round what makes you think he is just going to come out and slap him silly second time round?

Leonard would find a way to beat him convincingly, he always found a way. He played with Hagler an ATG in the fight but everyone here thinks he gets destroyed in a re-match.

Don't be so silly.

He didn't find a way first time out against Duran, if Hagler shows him no respect like Duran did he could walk through him fairly comfortably.

Onetwo reckons Duran was a bar room brawler and nothing more.

He didn't play with Hagler!!!

He didn't find a way with Hearns for twelve rounds ...His way was as you call it was a desperation rally!!

Norris ...no.............Camacho heck no!!!!!!!!!

He didn't always find a way...

He did find a way but it was after all his ideas had gone..

A last resort rather than anything intellectual..

Leonard didn't win any of his big fights convincingly.

Duran, Benitez, Hearns and Hagler all made him work very hard for his wins.

Wrong ghosty.

Leonard fought Durans fight to prove a point and still went the distance. Had he stuck to his normal style of fighting we all know what he would have done to Duran.

Lets not forget that before the Leonard Hagler fight Hagler struggled with brawler extrodinair Mugabi......think about that.

Leonard for me also takes the rematch.

Lack of consistency here. One minute Hagler was old and past it and yet he wins a rematch against guy who despite only one fight in 5 years and never fought at the weight before was able to beat him. Yes Hagler could start the rematch from the southpaw stance, but would he be any quicker which was the reaosn why he lost ? As SRL has more time to adjust to the weight surely his pucnhes will have a little more pop on them. Maybe not enough to KO "Marvellous" Marvin, but enough to cause a cut or produce swelling etc.

If Hagler was going to beat Leonard then the fight needed to happen years earlier.